"It is now highly feasible to take care of everybody on Earth at a higher standard of living than any have ever known. It no longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unnecessary. War is obsolete. It is a matter of converting our high technology from WEAPONRY to LIVINGRY."

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Sorry I've been incommunicado for the last couple of weeks. A family matter I'd rather not discuss here has occupied most of my attention and I've had very limited internet access as well.

To try to get the conversation going again, I'd like to quote Frank Bi's comment from a recent thread:

John Fleck:

"And there's good research suggesting that, in such situations, a very large fraction of a naive audience [...] remembers the bunk rather than the debunking."

...

Frank Bi:

I'm calling bunk on this latest blanket assertion until I see for my own eyes what the "good research" actually says in detail -- I'd guess the solution isn't to discard the story, but simply to devote less attention to the bunk itself (it's bunk after all) and more attention to the debunking.

And in any case, in between yourself and Kloor throwing out all sorts of excuses for not changing the way you do things, aren't you missing a really big picture?

Let me put it this way:

The public has a need -- indeed, a right -- to be aware that

(a) there's a climate inactivist noise campaign out there;(b) it's very well-funded, very calculated, and very deliberate;(c) it uses morally (and sometimes legally) dubious tactics; and(d) we have evidence to show for it.

It's not just about debunking random pieces of bunk. It's about shining the light on the entire noise campaign, and calling it as it is. I don't see what purpose is served by not talking about it.

History will record the climate bunk as one of the principal characteristics of our time. Why won't the press touch it? That's one of the biggest questions around.

As for where this thread left off, I believe (no surprise) that John Fleck made some points in his comments here and two posts on inkstain that have gone unchallenged by you: notably this from his latest(http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=4006):

"But Michael’s analysis of the media-public piece of this issue is increasingly unhitched from the data.

"Whena guy keeps changing their story, do you believe them? Would you buy a used car from that guy?"

They are different guys. IMO it would be a big mistake (in general) for advocates to pin their arguments on the latest hot-off-the-press (and probably disputed) research rather than the IPCC assessments, for a number of reasons. OTOH the IPCC did chicken out of addressing the sea level rise question in a rather spineless manner.

"sea ice dynamics" change the sea level numbers substantially (make them worse) but they are hard to predict.

So IPCC put the numbers of sea level rise in the summary with no sea ice dynamics effects. And people made huge headlines that the IPCC predicts lower sea level rise than in the past reports...

And blah and gah lots of stupidity ensued. Which would have been obvious to the people doing the report. (I think there was a mention of the difference in the report but many didn't read it and of course many intentionally ignored it.)

Not sea ice, but (land) ice sheet loss. But otherwise, yeah, that's the excuse, but if the risk of land ice sheet loss is really significant then they should have dealt with it more explicitly rather than just basically ignoring it. Rumour has it they are aiming to give it more emphasis this time round.

> "History will record the climate bunk as one of the principal characteristics of our time. Why won't the press touch it? That's one of the biggest questions around."

There does seem to be a pattern to the backgrounds of those members of the press who've been most instrumental, Wurlitzer-wise, in fomenting inactivism; and that pattern, along with a pattern to the background of some now allied with the fossil-fuel-energy industry, could shed light on the answer to your question.

But how anyone could present proof without risking imprisonment, I haven't yet figured out.

"the second circuit said this is just another tort-type case. It's a big one, of course, and it's loaded with complicated science questions, and cause-and-effect questions, but at bottom it is a tort case."

I wonder if this would explain some of the Limbaugh faction's desire for tort "reform".

Aaron simply spots for keywords and spews talking points that are irrelevant to the original topic. Let's ignore him.

* * *

keith:

"As for where this thread left off, I believe (no surprise) that John Fleck made some points in his comments here and two posts on inkstain that have gone unchallenged by you"

You asked for constructive suggestions on how to improve climate journalism. We offered some (dig up the background of groups like the Heartland Institute instead of just saying they're a 'conservative think-tank'; stop contacting Roger Pielke Jr. for 'contrarian' opinions; don't worry about time scales for the wrong reasons).

What did you do? After asking for construtive suggestions, and getting them, you simply ignored all of them and threw out stuff to "challenge" us.